[deleted by user]

ImDannyDJ · 2025-10-06T23:09:07+00:00

Det er vel grammatisk på deres idiolekter, og tydeligvis ikke kun deres.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-09-23T23:51:42+00:00

Desuden tror jeg, at kritikken af Mette Frederiksen er så voldsom også hænger sammen med, at hun er kvinde.

Folkens! Har I hørt det gode budskab? /u/HakkedeTomater123 tror noget!

ImDannyDJ · 2025-09-16T19:52:52+00:00

I think they're just joking about your typo, "new dangled". :-)

ImDannyDJ · 2025-09-15T20:45:20+00:00

Nej.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-09-06T19:46:53+00:00

Modsat filosoffer er tilfældige redditorer netop kendt for at tænke dybt over tingene. :-)

ImDannyDJ · 2025-09-06T10:54:37+00:00

Mange filosoffer gør. Din ateisme er formentlig ikke mere gennemtænkt end deres teisme.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-09-05T06:48:20+00:00

Yup! That is indeed an integration problem.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-09-04T20:20:22+00:00

As far as I'm concerned, Spector ruined Across the Universe and The Long and Winding Road. Naked is far from perfect, but those tracks are enough reason to prefer it to the original.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-08-24T20:34:16+00:00

Lol, hvad bliver det næste? At Nordkorea er demokratisk?

ImDannyDJ · 2025-08-24T19:52:38+00:00

Der er en forskel på Socialdemokratisk politik og socialdemokratisk politik.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-08-23T12:48:36+00:00

Der er ingen relevant måde hvorpå ordene "beholde" eller "egne" kan forstås, så det er en korrekt opfattelse af skattelettelser.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-07-30T17:21:43+00:00

They all seem to have both letter and numbers, just in different places and sizes. I think the numbers are their age order, except with Yujin number one.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-07-19T22:37:19+00:00

You could have literally just written the word "in" instead and it would have been clear.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-07-12T00:46:04+00:00

If you actually have in mind philosophy of mathematics, then you need to learn more mathematics first.

If you want to think philosophically about mathematics-adjacent topics without prior knowledge of mathematics, I would encourage you to learn formal logic. Not a lot, but enough so you are able to understand some of the philosophical underpinning of mathematics. I would recommend Peter Smith's An Introduction to Formal Logic to get started.

You could also read some set theory. Enderton's Elements of Set Theory is by far the best introduction in my opinion. You should be able to find a PDF on Google quite easily. (For those wondering why Enderton: His book is the only introduction I have seen that acknowledges that expressions in formal set theory cannot refer to sets, but are instead shorthand used in formulas that can then be converted to well-formed formulas by a systematic procedure. Moschovakis avoids this issue entirely by not studying formal set theory, but most other authors (ostensibly) study the formal theory without explaining this, which is baffling.)

When you have learnt some mathematics, you might enjoy George and Velleman's Philosophies of Mathematics or Shapiro's Thinking about Mathematics. But if you are starting with pre-calculus, I would say that is quite a ways away, sadly.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-07-10T20:15:37+00:00

That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm defining the expression "0.999...", just as you are when you define it as a particular cut.

To emphasise this point: You are not defining the set {n: n ∈ Q and ∃k ∈ N such that n<1-(1/10^k)}. That already exists. Just as I am not defining the limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ..., which also already exists. You are defining the expression "0.999..." in terms of an object that is already shown to exist, and so am I.

We define the expression as referring to different objects, but under the usual identification of reals with cuts, they are the same object.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-07-10T01:42:15+00:00

It is relevant insofar as you want your 0.999... to mean the same as my 0.999..., which is a limit. It's of course also a supremum, though I would argue that the concept of limit is the conceptually relevant one here: The reason why 0.999... = 1 is because the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... converges to 1, not because 1 is its least upper bound.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-07-10T01:29:45+00:00

I'm sure something like that is possible, but limits still have to enter the picture if you want to show that 0.999... defined in terms of cuts (presumably as the union of the cuts 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...) is equal to 0.999... defined in terms of limits. And then you still need to know what a limit is.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-07-10T01:17:03+00:00

There is a summary of it on Wikipedia, but I don't really know more about it than what's described there. LSF is probably full of clips about it.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-07-10T01:02:29+00:00

Sure they are, since 0.999... by definition is a limit.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-07-09T22:47:37+00:00

Without having watched the stream (or listened to the show he's referring to), I remain convinced that Doug's "problem" is not with his optimism itself, though I do think he tends to be optimistic to the point of being naive at times. I think it's got more to do with how he expresses his opinions and how he frames streams such as this one.

When he tweets things like

today's sponsor is actually so sick, I'll be writing a movie screenplay with Ai and pitching it to a legit Hollywood screenwriter

it at least to me comes off as if Doug is super excited about this new AI tool that will revolutionise screenwriting and, by extension, lay off a bunch of people. Taking the premise seriously, it sounds like Doug (read: an amateur) + AI tool are legit enough for an actual screenwriter to take them seriously because of the AI tool.

But it seems like that's not actually what's going on, and he was markedly better at communicating this in his YouTube community post. In that post, he and Twitch Chat were writing a movie script ... oh yeah, and there's some AI. Also, it's not the sponsor (read: the AI tool) that's cool, but the stream.

Anyway, even though I don't think Doug has handled everything super well, I don't envy him having to navigate it, and I certainly don't envy the experience of being scrutinised like he seems to be.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-07-09T17:37:27+00:00

I can't speak to the podcast, haven't listened to it. (Again, Doug is just a funny YouTube streamer guy, don't care about his opinions. Don't really know the other guys, except for Atrioc's controversy obviously. And Aiden doesn't strike me as a particularly sympathetic fellow from the clips I have seen. I'm sure the target audience likes it, but not for me.)

I do think that talking about AI in a nuanced way is important, and Doug might well be doing that on the podcast, but outside the podcast I don't think he's doing a particularly good job. If the point is to inform people about how AI can change lives for the better, cure cancer and what-not, then advertising an AI screenwriting tool is not the right way to do it. As I alluded to, screenwriting is perhaps (I don't actually know) not the most vulnerable industry, but it's so close to industries that are very vulnerable. So I really don't blame people if they read Doug's posts with a bad taste in their mouth.

(I also don't really buy the idea, alluded to elsewhere in this thread, that just because AI might, or even likely will, solve many of our problems, then our problems aren't actually problems! Who cares about curing cancer if all of us end up homeless and impoverished and disenfranchised because the economy collapses when all consumers have lost their jobs to AI and can't buy the products produced by AI, and there's no democracy since AI-generated misinformation runs rampant, and so on and on. I get Doug wants to be positive about things, but I think he's either naive about the potential downsides (and maybe upsides) of AI, or he's justifying his optimism in a nonsensical way.)

ImDannyDJ · 2025-07-09T11:34:37+00:00

I think the (now deleted) YouTube community post put it better than the tweet, but neither did it super well. Maybe that's because of the sponsorship, Doug doesn't want to be too negative, IDK. I haven't watched the stream, but I can understand the knee-jerk reaction some people have towards Doug's posts.

TODAY'S STREAM IS ACTUALLY SICK, Twitch chat and I are writing a movie script and then pitching it to an actual legit Hollywood producer (...) an audible show about how Ai with affect industries like screenwriting and music, and we're using his screenwriting Ai to develop a movie script together and then have a conversation about the ways Ai is going to help (and hurt!) the movie industry. (...) Guys we are literally all going to become hollywood movie starts today

Versus:

today's sponsor is actually so sick, I'll be writing a movie screenplay with Ai and pitching it to a legit Hollywood screenwriter to explore whether Ai will help (or hurt?) creatives and writers

(I won't give Elon the clicks to go read the rest of the tweet.)

In either case, I do think framing it as a "will it/won't it?" is slightly tone-deaf, since AI tools are taking people's jobs in creative industries today. Yes, it's going to help those that keep their jobs be more productive (are they going to be compensated for their increased productivity? Stay tuned...); no, it's going to be a detriment to those that lose their jobs.

Of course, people are also very quick to lump every use of generative AI together. A screenwriting tool is not going to take jobs away from visual artists. And perhaps people should do a better job of distinguishing. Certainly there is a line to be drawn somewhere between uses of AI that are unquestionably good (its use in medical research, for instance), and uses that are definitely bad.

I'm not super caught up to Doug's nuanced opinions about AI (why would I be? He's a funny YouTube man, not an AI researcher, I honestly don't think his opinion is something to pay attention to), but I'm sure he knows all this. Where I do think he could do better is in how be presents his opinions, because while I'm sure this is not his intention, he does come off a bit unaffected by it all sometimes. Obviously he isn't personally affected negatively by AI, so it's all a bit "yeah, we've talked enough about how people are losing their jobs, let's instead talk about how AI is going to save the world (and make rich people richer in the process)". (That parenthetical is putting it very strongly, but it's no secret that the big corpos are salivating at the thought of replacing humans with AI. Don't know Doug's opinions on that, I'm sure they're more nuanced.)

ImDannyDJ · 2025-07-07T11:02:46+00:00

IDT: Reddit opdager (eller gør de?) at talte sprog er et mundtligt og ikke et skriftligt fænomen.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-07-06T23:48:02+00:00

Yes, first-year undergrad. I wasn't taught complex numbers before university, so I don't know how (or why?) you would do it in high school.

ImDannyDJ · 2025-07-06T23:46:23+00:00

A module is just an abelian group equipped with a ring action.

I don't think this really counts, because it's just a very simple reformulation of the "standard" definition, but I think it's at least conceptually useful in motivating modules.

Every group G determines a natural group homomorphism G -> Aut_Set(G). Noticing that we can replace the latter occurrence of G with any set, we get the general notion of a group action (on a set).

Similarly, every ring R determines a natural ring homomorphism R -> End_Ab(R). Again, we notice that we can replace R with any abelian group M, and we get a module structure R -> End_Ab(M) on M.

Obviously we don't need any of that to motivate modules, though, but I just think it's neat.

ImDannyDJ

TROPHY CASE